[JohnVDB]

For example, Club Green Meadows in Vancouver, Washington. Golflink has it at 72 par | 6,486 yards | 118 slope, but the GHIN app has it at 132 slope. So a 12% change in slope rating without a change in length.

I just looked at the USGA National Course Rating Database.
CGM has a slope of 118 from the yellow tees (course rating 66.6) and 132 from the Blue tees (course rating 71.2.

Golflink's score card doesn't even have yellow tees on it, shows a course rating of 70.4 and a slope of 118.
There are no tees in the Course Rating Database which have a course rating of 70.4.  they also have White tees at 69.9, 127.
I think Golflink has old data and possibly got the slope from one set of tees mixed up with another set.

[B.Ross]

... With the new manual out this year the process is very objective.  95% length. ...

The manual doesn't really say that does it? If it does, then something is very wrong with some ratings, or with that statement.

I have been looking at some ratings on line i use the GHIN app to get the latest ratings, and i look up score cards online. Many of the scorecards are out of date, and show significant changes in slope ratings without any changes in length that i am aware of.

For example, Club Green Meadows in Vancouver, Washington. Golflink has it at 72 par | 6,486 yards | 118 slope, but the GHIN app has it at 132 slope. So a 12% change in slope rating without a change in length.

the national course rating database ([size=78%]https://ncrdb.usga.org/[/size]) is as good as using the ghin app, arguably easier. and bluegolf is a better source than golflink, for certain, in terms of finding more updated scorecards

[Garland Bayley]

For example, Club Green Meadows in Vancouver, Washington. Golflink has it at 72 par | 6,486 yards | 118 slope, but the GHIN app has it at 132 slope. So a 12% change in slope rating without a change in length.

I just looked at the USGA National Course Rating Database.
CGM has a slope of 118 from the yellow tees (course rating 66.6) and 132 from the Blue tees (course rating 71.2.

Golflink's score card doesn't even have yellow tees on it, shows a course rating of 70.4 and a slope of 118.
There are no tees in the Course Rating Database which have a course rating of 70.4.  they also have White tees at 69.9, 127.
I think Golflink has old data and possibly got the slope from one set of tees mixed up with another set.

john,

Golflink gave the rating from the blue tees at 6486 yards.

[Garland Bayley]

... With the new manual out this year the process is very objective.  95% length. ...

The manual doesn't really say that does it? If it does, then something is very wrong with some ratings, or with that statement.

I have been looking at some ratings on line i use the GHIN app to get the latest ratings, and i look up score cards online. Many of the scorecards are out of date, and show significant changes in slope ratings without any changes in length that i am aware of.

For example, Club Green Meadows in Vancouver, Washington. Golflink has it at 72 par | 6,486 yards | 118 slope, but the GHIN app has it at 132 slope. So a 12% change in slope rating without a change in length.

the national course rating database ([size=78%]https://ncrdb.usga.org/[/size]) is as good as using the ghin app, arguably easier. and bluegolf is a better source than golflink, for certain, in terms of finding more updated scorecards

bluegolf is probably more recent. They give 123 for the slope from the blue tees. Still over 7% different than the current slope in GHIN.  Length of the course hasn't changed, but slope changes more than the 5% people are maintaining is for other factors besides length.

[Wayne_Kozun]

You sound like you and you buddies are wild Willys (Dean Knuth's term) like my buddies and me. We don't fit the averages that go into making statistical handicap systems. If I remember correctly, there is a group of short straight hitters that also don't fit handicap statistics that slightly outnumber us. In Florida, they would empty your wallet in a hurry, whereas at your home course you would be emptying theirs.

I always thought that it would make sense to include the variance of one's scores into the calculation of a handicap.  I would think that a higher variance (or standard deviation) should increase your handicap by a bit, as you will now only shoot better than your handicap 20% of the time, and shooting your handicap would be less likely with a very high variance.

[Jerry Kluger]

I look at it this way - if slope is lower than it should be that is to the advantage of the player as all of the other players at that course will be using the same slope, etc. And it will also mean that their handicap will be higher when playing at another course and they should be able to shoot lower net away scores. This all means that a higher slope is more vanity than reality.

[A.G._Crockett]

Wonderful thread; thanks to all that have contributed.
I have several friends who do course ratings for the CGA, and I have tremendous respect for the work that they do. They work hard at it, and I think that any thoughts of access probably go out the window pretty early on; the guys that stay with it are pretty dedicated to doing the job well.
The only thing I'd add is that in any discussion of handicaps, course ratings, slope, etc., it is perhaps helpful to remember that the purpose of all of this is to equalize competition between golfers of different abilities, regardless of where they are playing on a given day, or even which tees they are playing.  In that regard, I am continually impressed by how well the system works at ANY course IF (and this is THE big if!) all the golfers involved have accurate indexes and therefore accurate course handicaps.  Going beyond that usage and instead employing course rating and slope as a comparison of Course A and Course B takes us onto very thin ice very quickly.

[Michael Whitaker]

I’m not sure why some can’t properly grasp the concept of a Slope rating.

It does NOT indicate how hard a course is. It DOES indicate how difficult it plays for a BOGIE golfer compared to a scratch player. That’s why you good players scratch your heads at some courses’ Slope ratings. The Slope doesn’t tell you how hard it is for YOU... that’s what the Course Rating is for. Slope tells you how difficult the course will comparatively play for BOGIE golfers. The higher the Slope the greater the difference in the expected score between the two golfers. That’s why the Course Handicap chart on a higher Slope course gives the Bogie golfer more shots... he needs them to make up the difference.

[Michael Whitaker]

This thread makes me so excited to see the OWGH system start up in the UK.

I know you are being snide... but, I honestly cannot think of someone who would be better on a course rating team than you. You should think about contacting your local association and volunteering for a rating team. Seriously.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Iwonder how much familiarity impacts slope. From the tees I play my course is sloped at 145. For first time players the course can be terrifying. After a few plays we discover how to play the course without to many disasters. I spent four days at Victoria National last year. The first time around I thought it was sloped too low. After a few plays I knew where to hit the ball. Course raters see it one time. I'm not sure once is truly enough to do an accurate rating.

Generally speaking, the "too low" is right: you might "play" to about a 155 or something slope the first few times at a course like yours, and then as you play more often, you settle in to the 145 slope.

It's like people who aren't used to fast sloped greens like many old clubs with money (i.e. old enough the greens have a bunch of slope, enough money to maintain greens at 11 or 12)… they figure out how to putt there after taking 42 putts their first few rounds there.

As others have said, the Effective Playing Length (yardage plus things like wind, elevation change etc) of each hole makes up 90-95% of the Scratch and Bogey Ratings. Of the remaining 5-10%, most of that comes directly from measurements and tables and is not subjective.  The actual amount the rating team can subjectively determine is very small.

+1

[Mark Pearce]

This thread makes me so excited to see the OWGH system start up in the UK.

I know you are being snide... but, I honestly cannot think of someone who would be better on a course rating team than you. You should think about contacting your local association and volunteering for a rating team. Seriously.

Mike,  genuinely I'd be interested, but I don't know how it's working over here (I think most courses have been rated) and I wouldn't have a clue who to speak to.  I doubt that the counties have any input.

[Sean_A]

This thread makes me so excited to see the OWGH system start up in the UK.

I know you are being snide... but, I honestly cannot think of someone who would be better on a course rating team than you. You should think about contacting your local association and volunteering for a rating team. Seriously.

Mike,  genuinely I'd be interested, but I don't know how it's working over here (I think most courses have been rated) and I wouldn't have a clue who to speak to.  I doubt that the counties have any input.

If the system is objective I wouldn't think the UK needs many raters. I have not heard of any recruitment drives for raters.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Mike,  genuinely I'd be interested, but I don't know how it's working over here (I think most courses have been rated) and I wouldn't have a clue who to speak to.  I doubt that the counties have any input.

Courses must be re-rated every 10 years at a minimum (in the U.S. anyway). We strive to do ours every 5-6.

[B.Ross]

thinking aloud: the modern driver has become one of the easiest clubs in the bag to hit, while historically it was the most difficult. many drivers today are easier to hit than a 3w or hybrid or even long iron, at least in my opinion and from my observation. if we hold this to be true, there are now courses where landing areas are more penal for the 275 yard driver of the ball from the middle tees than they are from 1 set of tees back.


one could argue that the aforementioned 275 yard driver of the ball should just club down when playing up which would eliminate the penal landing zone, but that presumes the fact that clubbing down produces a shot just as straight, consistent and far.


this applies more to course rating than slope, but wondering what you raters think of this given the defined importance of length in the process.

[Peter Pallotta]

Eden's post brought an aside to mind:
I know there is a (theoretical) distinction-difference between a course's rating and its slope, but I think that (in practical terms) it's very often a false dichotomy, a distinction without a difference. 

[Garland Bayley]

Eden,

If you are talented at hitting the ball with a consistent face angle hitting driver may be easier. However,  I would conjecture that the vast majority of golfers can't do that. So hitting 3 wood is always straighter. Based on my own experience of course.

[Michael Whitaker]

Eden's post brought an aside to mind:
I know there is a (theoretical) distinction-difference between a course's rating and its slope, but I think that (in practical terms) it's very often a false dichotomy, a distinction without a difference.

Peter - the distinction is not theoretical or a false dichotomy. A course rating and a slope rating are two completely different things.

A course rating tells you the score a scratch golf is expected to shoot from a given tee. A bogie rating tells you the score a bogie golfer is expected to shoot from a given tee. The slope rating indicates the severity of the difference between a course rating and a bogie rating from a given tee. The higher the slope, the greater the difference. I don’t know why some try to make this harder than it is.

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael - thanks for following up on this. I understand the 'technical' difference between the two (and you explained it well) -- but I am suggesting that, in a 'practical' sense, and for the average golfer, the slope rating is if not meaningless than at least redundant.

If the course rating is high, the bogey golfer will surely struggle, and struggle significantly more (more severely) than the scratch golfer -- regardless of the ostensible slope rating.

In other words, I think that if the course rating is correct/properly assigned, it tells me all I need to know about the kind of golf course that it is, ie not only how hard it will be for me, but also how much harder it will be for me than for a very good golfer.
Peter

PS - I have no data or expert knowledge to back this up, it's just an impression/observation from my own play and that of others. The course ratings of courses I've played over the years seem to prove 'accurate' and 'meaningful' much more often than do the 'slope ratings'.

[Sean_A]

In my experience most scratch level golfers would rather play a tougher rated course. Generally, yardage is not an issue for these guys. They can hit the ball some distance. If these guys play a shorter, lower rated course, they basically need to shoot par or sometimes better just to hit the buffer. So from this aspect I do believe there are inherent issues with course rating being so dominated by length.

An admission, I am suspicious of numbers used to explain golf. I don't believe for a minute that a complex outdoor game boils down to numbers and formulas. This also explains my distrust of numbers used to determine course quality.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()